Chennai Court January 2007 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ananda Kathirone Vs. the Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Reported in: (2007)2LLJ295Mad
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The workman and the Management of Addison & Co., Ltd., are the parties in both the writ petitions. Hence common order is passed.2. The Principal Labour Court, at Chennai passed an award in I.D. No. 62 of 1998 and aggrieved by the same the workman as well as the Management preferred the writ petitions.3. While disposing of the Industrial Dispute, the learned Presiding Officer of the Principal Labour Court held that the workman is the protected workman and the Management has no power to dismiss him from service. It is held that the evidence adduced by the witnesses on behalf of the Management during the Domestic enquiry is interested. Therefore the Labour Court held that the petitioner ought not to have been dismissed but he is not eligible for reinstatement as he is attained the age of superannuation but he is entitled for back-wages with all attendant benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement.4. The workman is contending that he is entitl...
M.M. Rubber Company Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director Vs. the Unio ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Reported in: 2007(116)ECC508; 2007LC508(Madras)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioner filed the above writ petitions seeking for the following reliefs:Writ Petition NO. 12283 of 1998 is filed for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent and quash the order NO. 210/98 dated 26.12.1997 in so far as it relates to the finding that there are no merits in the plea that the show cause notice could not have been issued by the second respondent since the assessments were provisional. Writ Petition No. 12283 of 1998 is filed for the issuance of writ of declaration to declare that the order dated 26.12.1997 passed by the third respondent is invalid. Writ Petition NO. 12285 of 1998 is filed for the issuance of writ of declaration to declare that the assessments were provisional when the order dated 10.6.1987 was passed by the second respondent and that when the assessments were provisional, the order dated 10.6.1987 passed by the second respondent is invalid.2. The facts of the case as culled ou...
Mohammed Abdul Malik Vs. the Presiding Officer, Iind Additional Labour ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Reported in: (2007)IILLJ281Mad
ORDERM.E.N. Patrudu, J.1. The petitioner is questioning the Award of the first Respondent the Presiding Officer of the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P. No. 205 of 1998.2. Briefly the facts are: The petitioner is having a shop and he is doing business in garments. The second Respondent hereinafter referred to as workman worked as Part-Time employee as Quality Control Inspector. According to the petitioner, the workman stopped offering his services with effect from 31.8.1997 and left the services of the petitioner. But thereafter, he issued a legal notice on 12.1.1998 claiming Rs.12,000/- as salary payable to him from September to December 1997 at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and after issuance of the legal notice he filed a petition under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming the following:(a) Wages unpaid for the period from Rs. Ps.1.9.97 to 31.12.97 for 4 monthsat Rs.3,000/- consolidatedamounting to .. 12,000.00(b) Overtime wages for the periodfrom 1.4....
Kuppammal Vs. Chinnathambi Padayachi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: 2006(0)PTC0(Mad)
S. Ashok Kumar, J.1. As against the concurrent findings by the courts below the first defendant in the Execution Application has filed the present appeal. 2. The first respondent herein who is a third party to the Execution Proceedings has filed the E.A. No. 1398 of 1984 in O.S. No: 856 of 1972 contending that he purchased the 0.34 cents namely the 6th item in the decree on consideration from Selvaraj, thangavelu and Chinnapattu. According to him the vendors filed O.S. No: 649 of 1972 before the trial court and the same was decreed on 30.11.1973. In pursuance of that decree in E.P. No. 210 of 1980 the trial court executed a registered sale deed in favour of the said Selvaraj and Thangaraju on 27.4.1981. Therefore the first respondent being a purchaser from them is a bona fide purchaser. After such purchase, the petitioner dug out two wells and made improvements for doing vegetation. The first respondent also alleged that the respondents viz., Kuppammal and others who are the plaintiffs...
V.R. Parthasarathy Vs. Boominathan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-08-2007
Reported in: (2007)5MLJ376
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This Appeal Suit has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 7811 of 1996 passed by the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff who has lost his case before the trial Court has preferred this appeal. The suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property, for consequential injunction and for mandatory injunction to remove the fence put up by the defendant in the suit property.2. The short facts of the case of the plaintiff in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:The Assistant Commissioner of Urban and Land Tax Kundrathur, Chennai had initiated proceedings in respect of the suit property in RC. No. 3831/85A dated 27/28.4.1989 under the Tamilnadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Against this, the plaintiff had filed Writ Petition No. 6686/1989 to quash the proceedings and also sought stay of all further proc...
K. Ramu Vs. Adyar Ananda Bhavan and Muthulakshmi Bhavan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: LC2007(1)352; (2007)2MLJ907; 2007(34)PTC689(Mad)
ORDERS. Rajeswaran, J.1. O.A. Nos. 535/2006 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent its partners or proprietors as the case may be their men, agents, servants, successors-in-business, legal representatives or any person claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the applicant's product patent under No. 200285 by making, using, selling or offering for sale of sweets made with fructose/levulose or in ant other manner violating the said registered patent whatsoever pending disposal of the suit.2. O.A. No. 536/2006 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent, its partners or proprietors as the case may be, their men, agents, servants, successors-in-business, legal representatives or any person claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the applicant's process patent under No. 193899 by making any product, using, selling, offering for sale products made w...
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Senniappan,
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2009ACJ198; 2007(4)CTC374; [2007(115)FLR138]
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.02.2005 passed in W.C. No. 268 of 2003 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Salem (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner), the second opposite party (insurer therein) has filed the above appeal.2. Respondents 1 and 2 herein, who are the parents of one Thangavel @ kumar, filed W.C. No. 268 of 2003 claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- in respect of the death of their son on the ground that while he was employed as a Rig Operator under the third respondent in 'Ashok Leyland Rig Unit' bearing Registration No. TNP 7897 met with an accident in the course of his employment on 08.12.1999. According to Respondents 1 and 2 their son was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-. The vehicle in question was insured with the appellant herein and as such the third respondent as the owner and the appellant as the insurer are liable to pay compensation.3. The said claim of Respondents 1 an...
The Jawahar Mills Ltd. Rep. by Its Authorised Agent S. Kalidas Vs. Gen ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: [2007]137CompCas28(Mad)
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in C.C. No. 304/1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tiruppur. The complainant, who has lost his case before the trial Court, is the appellant herein. The complainant has preferred the complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.2. The short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal narrated in the plaint are as follows:The Plaintiff by name Jawahar Mills Ltd, is having office at No. 21, Sales Depot, Sathappa Compound, Harvy road, Tirupur-2. One Kalidas is the authorised representative of the plaintiff. The said Kalidas has filed the complaint on behalf of the complainant-M/s. Jawahar Mills Ltd. The first accused is M/s General Diffutions company Ltd and the second accused is the authorised representative of the first accused. As per invoice No. 50, dated 29.06.1995, the accused owes a sum of Rs. 93,896/- in connection with the purchase of yarn from the complainant-company. The se...
Chamundeeswari and P.R. Sridharan Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: 2007(2)CTC149; [2007]78SCL151(Mad); (2007)6VST399(Mad)
ORDERK. Raviraja Pandian, J.1. The petitioners have put in issue the distraint proceedings initiated by the respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer to recover a sum of Rs. 31,03,345/- towards arrears of sales tax for the assessment years from 1991-92 to 1994-95. It is the case of the petitioners that the assessee is the public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 under the certificate No. 12819 of 1986 amended on 13.11.1987. The company and its factory have been taken possession by the Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1995 and the company is no more in existence. Further, the petitioners have also resigned from the directorship on and from 18.06.1996 and 23.05.1996 respectively and to that effect resolution has been passed by the directors of the company. As such from that dates the petitioners ceased to be the directors of the company. All of a sudden, proceedings under Section 8 of the Revenue Rec...
Clara W/O. Late. Abraham Mathew and Elizabeth Mathew D/O. Late. Abraha ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-2007
Reported in: I(2007)ACC1; 2008ACJ1837; (2007)1MLJ600
K. Mohan Ram, J.1. The claimants have preferred the above appeal being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Judge), Chengalpattu in M.C.O.P.No.180 of 1996.2. The first appellant-wife and the second appellant-minor daughter of the deceased-Abharam Mathew filed M.C.O.P.No.180 of 1996 claiming a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- by way of compensation on the basis that while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in the scooter bearing Registration No. TN09-E-1382 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent and driven by one Pushparaj on his way to Guduvanchery to Maraimalainagar. The driver of the scooter drove it rashly and negligently at a high speed and dashed on a blind end and was thrown off resulting in multiple injuries and instant death. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 30 years on the date of death and the appellants were aged 27 years and 2 years respectively. The deceased was a qualified...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »